The First Vision

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Bonus points from the 1832 testimonial

Post by Shulem »

Joseph Smith Handwritten Account of the 1832 First Vision wrote:
  • for I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday to day and forever

Smith believed in the same eternal God as taught by churches of present-day Christianity. All Christians believed the Father & Son were One God who manifests spiritually & physically. Nothing is said or implied that there are two separate persons appearing together in the vision! Smith agreed that Christian churches taught the correct concept of God but that their hearts were far from him and they had apostatized from the commandments and gospel.

Joseph Smith Handwritten Account of the 1832 First Vision wrote:
  • I​ considered all these things and that that​ being seeketh such to worshep him as worship him in spirit and in truth

1. “that being”
2. “worship him”

Nothing is said of beings (plural) or them (plural)!

The 1832 First Vision account portrays God in the singular. Period.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Bonus points from the 1832 testimonial

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Nov 20, 2022 10:37 pm
Joseph Smith Handwritten Account of the 1832 First Vision wrote:
  • for I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday today and forever
We need to remember the shift between God wanting the children of same-sex couples to walk the plank and rescinding that order three years later, after many members left the Church over it. However, we need to remember that this was correcting a policy blunder made by the Brethren in their white-hot anger over the Obergefell decision, and if God had a say it would be to ask these same men to quit making hateful pronouncements in his name.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Which one?

Post by Shulem »

Smith’s declaration and teaching that God the Father is a separate and distinct Person is something that is never heard of or expressed prior to the discovery of the Egyptian papyri. Mormons embraced the traditional Christian theology of God as taught in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. Nothing about God having a body of flesh and bone and being a divine Man having passion for sex is revealed until much later through Joseph Smith and advanced teachings of Brigham Young.

If Smith really believed that the Father appeared to him in the grove bearing a physical body, then which of the following statements would Smith have made many years after the fact?

Joseph Smith wrote:I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house.
Joseph Smith wrote:I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it in prayer while being visited by both God and Christ in a grove of trees.

:!:

Touchdown, Backyard Professor!

The First Vision has lost the game! What say ye, RFM?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The First Vision

Post by Shulem »

Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, April 1844 wrote:We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are the simple and first principles of the gospel, to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another, and that God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible.

Smith rambled on about the “character of God” by asserting that an understanding of the character is based on the concept of the plurality of the Gods and the physical nature thereof. This understanding was given to the Church late in Smith’s ministry. Note how the “first principles of the gospel” are based on having a true understanding of the “character of God.” Without that understanding it is impossible to perceive the “simple” ideas of the first principles which express God and Jesus as physical men having bodies of flesh and bones.

Prior to Smith translating the Egyptian papyrus, the “first principles of the gospel” of the so-called “character of God” was never revealed or expressed to anyone in the Church! Nobody, not even Smith, was ever said to “to know for a certainty” the character of God based on understanding the Father and Son as separate beings having bodies of flesh and bones! Prior to translating the papyrus, Smith never claimed to have conversed with (let alone seen) the Father separately in a First Vision experience! Therefore, by Smith’s own admission, he admits that he couldn’t have had an understanding of the “first principles of the gospel” seeing he never revealed it to anyone early in his ministry because he wholly ascribed to Trinitarian beliefs as expressed in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Gotcha, Joe!

:D
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

It never happened...

Post by Shulem »

The official 1838 version of the First Vision account is a LIE.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The First Vision

Post by Shulem »

Let’s recap and look at the problem Smith made for himself later in his ministry when he changed the doctrine of God into a plurality and abandoned the biblical Trinitarian concept of God:

Prior to 1835, nobody, not even Joseph Smith believed the Father and Son were two separate persons each having a body of flesh and bone. Nobody in the Church of the Latter Day Saints conceived the idea that the Trinitarian God of the Bible could appear as two men having bodies of flesh. The Bible makes it unmistakably clear that *in* Jesus “dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” and Father “God is a Spirit.”

Bear in mind:
  • “first principles of the gospel” is to know that God is a Spirit (John 4:24)
  • “to know for a certainty the character of God” in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9)
  • “that we may converse with him as one man with another” Jesus said, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9)

Smith’s teachings in 1844 negate the ability of Smith and the Latter Day Saints in 1832 to have a correct knowledge of the “first principles of the gospel” and nobody was able “to know for a certainty the character of God” as two separate men. There is nothing in all of Mormonism that leads anyone to suspect or believe that Smith taught that doctrine prior to translating the papyrus. It’s an open and shut case in proving that Joseph Smith was making doctrine up as he went along and he changed his account of the First Vision to satisfy that need.

I bear my testimony, I know that Smith changed his doctrines and never at any time prior to 1835 did he conceive the idea of the Father and Son being two men having bodies of flesh and bones. I bear witness of this truth based on the record and the personal testimony given by Joseph Smith himself, written by his own hand in his letterbook. Smith originally believed the Lord of glory was the Father and the Son manifesting himself as a single God!

I say this in the name of Joseph Smith, Amen.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Not so...

Post by Shulem »

Church Essay, First Vision Accounts wrote: Conclusion

Joseph Smith testified repeatedly that he experienced a remarkable vision of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.

The above statement tendered by scholars of the Church on the official Church website is misleading! It tends to express the idea that there was continuity in Smith’s testimony and an unbroken faith on his part for what he claimed to see. But that is simply false. Smith did NOT repeatedly testify of seeing in vision God the Father and His Son prior to changing his belief in the traditional Trinitarian God to the plurality of Gods. Smith never testified of a plurality during these years:

1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834


The ushering in of the restored gospel during the critical years of 1829-1834 without the testimonial of the Father appearing in bodily form is all the proof we need to know that the idea of the Father being a Man-god with a body never crossed Smith’s mind. It never dawned on him that the Father was a physical man with a penis! And Mormonism today wants YOU to believe that God is a man with a penis.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Church Apologetics

Post by Shulem »

Church Essay, First Vision Accounts wrote:Embellishment. The second argument frequently made regarding the accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision is that he embellished his story over time.

But the critical argument falls right in line with how Smith operated -- line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little...

Of course Smith embellished his story over time in order to make it fit his new narrative!

Church Essay, First Vision Accounts wrote:This argument focuses on two details: the number and identity of the heavenly beings Joseph Smith stated that he saw.

Hold on there! I’ve demonstrated there is more to it than number and identity. There is also the principle of *DOCTRINE* and the bearing of testimony which puts the 1832 account in jeopardy when trying to square it up with Smith’s later doctrine coupled with the principle of knowledge. The earliest account of the First Vision is proof positive that Smith had no idea what the doctrine of the plurality of Gods meant and does not describe the finger pointing gesture of one man pointing to another man. Therefore, the doctrine of the plurality of Gods was unknown to Smith when he wrote the 1832 version because he didn’t come to that kind of understanding until after he translated the papyrus beginning in 1835.

TOUCHDOWN for the Backyard Professor!

Moksha goes for the extra point!

:lol:

RFM, where are you? Ur just jealous.

:mrgreen:
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Church Apologetics

Post by Shulem »

Church Essay, First Vision Accounts wrote:Joseph’s First Vision accounts describe the heavenly beings with greater detail over time.

Do you think? Therein lies your problem because you’re comparing apples with oranges. Let me explain.

Your statement above implies that all the accounts are true and provide additional detail as the years go by. But the underlying argument in the statement is flawed because it leads readers to think that divine “heavenly beings” are portrayed in all of the accounts. But the first account has only *ONE* being, the “Lord of glory”. But how does that compare to the doctrine of the plurality of Gods which is based on the concept that there are BEINGS, plural in number? The 1832 account is singular containing doctrine of an eye single to the glory of the Trinitarian God!

Thus, the 1832 account is an apple and the others are oranges. Two different animals! One bears witness of ONE God and the others bear witness of the plurality of Gods. There is a huge difference between the two!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Church Apologetics

Post by Shulem »

Church Essay, First Vision Accounts wrote:The 1832 account says, “The Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.” His 1838 account states, “I saw two Personages,” one of whom introduced the other as “My Beloved Son.”

Yes and yes! :)

I agree!!

That is exactly what Joseph Smith wrote in the 1832 and 1838 accounts!!!

BUT IN THE VERY NEXT BREATH :evil: THE APOLOGISTS SAY THIS:

Church Essay, First Vision Accounts wrote:As a result, critics have argued that Joseph Smith started out reporting to have seen one being—“the Lord”—and ended up claiming to have seen both the Father and the Son.

Why in God’s name are critics being blamed for that? Is it because apologists are in the habit of finding fault with critics and painting them as villains even when they are spot-on and correct! But the apologists could just as well had said:

As a result, critics have argued that Joseph Smith started out reporting to have seen one being—“the Lord”—and ended up claiming to have seen both the Father and the Son.

And that is exactly what happened. It’s not just an argument but it’s the facts! Joseph Smith started out reporting to have seen one being and ended up claiming to have seen both the Father and the Son. That is something every member of the Church should ponder with serious consideration.
Post Reply